Innovative Work Behavior—A Key Factor in Business Performance? The Role of Team Cognitive Diversity and Teamwork Climate in This Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our paper is to examine whether the support of innovative work behavior by management is positively related to business performance and at the same time, whether this relationship is mediated by the teamwork climate and cognitive diversity of teams. Cognitive diversity is defined as differences in knowledge and perspective, which arise from professional diversity and account for its positive effects. A teamwork climate represents staff perceptions of collaboration between personnel. Business performance is defined by the level of sales. Our sample consisted of 211 managers of companies operating in Slovakia, and data collection took place in the form of a questionnaire. The main tool for examining the mechanism of operation of the investigated relationships is mediation using regression analysis and the Sobel test to determine the significance of the indirect effect of mediation variables. The findings point to a significant direct relationship between the innovative work behavior of company employees and business performance. The intensity of this relationship can be partly influenced by promoting cognitive diversity, especially in the area of knowledge and ways of thinking. The significant role of a teamwork climate was not demonstrated in the examined model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".